Advanced heart failure (AdHF) is a progressive condition with a high morbidity and mortality burden despite optimal medical therapy. Heart transplant (HT) and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) represent the only two life-prolonging options in AdHF. Unfortunately, only a minority of AdHF patients are eligible for these life-saving therapies, and even patients who are candidates for HT usually incur prolonged waiting list times. Intermittent or continuous home-based inotropic therapy offers a potential solution to improve quality of life, reduce recurrent hospitalizations, and maintain organ function, both for the stabilization of patients who are ultimately candidates for life-saving therapies and for palliative care in those without other therapeutic options. In this review, we summarize the current literature on the role of home inotropes in managing AdHF, emphasizing the current evidence on the most adopted agents, the practical considerations for their administration, and the possible different preferred utilization of these agents. Finally, we address gaps in the literature and outline future research directions to enhance therapeutic options and outcomes.

Pharmacotherapy of chronic heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging. We aimed to assess whether combined neuro-humoral modulation (NHM) (renin–angiotensin system inhibitors, betablockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) was differentially associated with outcome according to phenotype and age groups. Between 1999 and 2018 we recruited in a nationwide cardiology registry 4707 patients (HFmrEF n = 2298, HFpEF n = 2409) from three age groups: <65, 65–79 and 80+ years old. We analyzed clinical characteristics and 1 year all-cause mortality/cardiovascular hospitalization according to none/single, any double, or triple NHM. Prescription rates of no/single and triple NHM were 25.1% and 26.7% for HFmrEF; 36.5% and 17.9% for HFpEF patients, respectively. Older age was associated with higher prescription of no/single NHM in HFmrEF (p_trend = 0.001); the reverse was observed among HFpEF (p_trend = 0.005). Triple NHM increased over time in both phenotypes (all p for trend < 0.0001). Compared to no/single NHM, triple, but not double, NHM was associated with better outcomes in both HFmrEF (HR 0.700, 95%CI 0.505–0.969, p = 0.032) and HFpEF (HR 0.700, 95%CI 0.499–0.983, p = 0.039), with no interaction between NHM treatment and age groups (p = 0.58, p = 0.80, respectively). In a cardiology setting, among HF outpatients with EF > 40%, triple NHM treatment increased over time and was associated with better patient outcomes.

Despite the wealth of evidence in favour of SGLT2 inhibitor use in patients with chronic heart failure, their role in the very early stages of heart failure is still unclear. While the latest update of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines on heart failure advocates the use SGLT2 inhibitors in the acute phases of heart failure based on the results of the latest trials, it does not clarify the appropriate timing to start this therapy, leaving the clinician to decide whether SGLT2 inhibitors should be started directly during hospitalization or at discharge. Conversely, the recently published focused update of the American College of Cardiology expert consensus decision pathway on the clinical assessment, management, and trajectory of patients hospitalized with heart failure clearly supports the safety and early clinical benefit use of SGLT2 inhibitors based on evidence coming from the EMPULSE and SOLOIST-WHF trials. The expert consensus decision pathway states that SGLT2 inhibitors can be initiated regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction at any time during hospitalization and places a greater emphasis on implementing the other pillars of therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after stabilization. Moreover, the results of the very recent DAPA ACT HF–TIMI 68 trial on dapagliflozin in patients with acute heart failure, although limited by a follow-up of only 2 months, did not show a reduction in mortality or heart failure hospitalizations. Based on the currently available published data, we will review what is already known about the use of these drugs in the early phases of acute heart failure and analyze their pathophysiological rationale from a practical perspective.

Heart failure (HF) is a condition with a high clinical and healthcare burden. In Europe, the current incidence is approximately 5 per 1000 persons per year in the adult population, with a prevalence of 1–2%. Prognosis remains poor, with persistently high rates of mortality and hospitalization. The period immediately following hospital discharge is known as the “vulnerable phase,” marked by a heightened incidence of clinical events, including a 30% chance of rehospitalization and a 10% mortality risk. Effective patient management during this time is crucial and should incorporate a risk stratification process, which is vital for designing a personalized follow-up plan and ensuring optimal resource utilization. This review aims to outline the available tools for prognostic risk stratification and propose a structured follow-up model applicable at discharge from an HF hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and in patients with mildly reduced/preserved ejection fraction.